I didn't vote on your marriage.
"Today the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay. " (From an email from Equality California.)
I have very mixed feelings about this. I feel that a lawsuit was absolutely the WORST way to go about fighting this amendment. I also feel, however, that the lawsuit brings excellent points to the judges.
"Lawsuits to overturn the initiative contend it was a revision because it denied equal protection to a minority group and eviscerated a key constitutional guarantee. Supporters of Proposition 8 counter that it merely amended the constitution by restoring a traditional definition of marriage."(See the whole article here.)
Revisions to the constitution, in sharp contrast with amendments, require a 2/3 majority vote. This challenge , if the court acknowledges its validity, would make 8's passage illegal, thus granting merit to the lawsuits which have been filed.
But.
What if the court does not accept the idea that 8 is a constitutional revision? Then the implications of filing a lawsuit could be severely detrimental to the development of equal rights for same-sex couples.
"First, Virginia Postrel is absolutely right that a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 is the worst idea yet. The state courts will not declare it invalid, even if the "revision versus amendment" theory were not as immediately implausible as it is. It may be that a superior court judge could be found who would buy it, and maybe even a court of appeals, but the California Supreme Court, which faces retention elections, you know, won't declare Proposition 8 illegal and thereby bring on even more controversy than they already stirred. That court has already done all that it can do for SSM advocates: it helped bring down the opposition vote from the 60 percents to just a little over 50. That alone is huge progress."
(Someone smarter than me wrote this.
Read it here, if you like.)
Please do not misunderstand me; I am a very strong and passionate proponent of gay marriage. I have often likened the passage of Prop 8 to the murder of my hypothetical puppy. However, it angers me that the fight was so soft-spoken and poorly executed before the vote and now that the fight must continue, such drastic and potentially damaging steps are being taken. Get it together, people. At this point, we're only creating more resistance by taking all the wrong turns in the labyrinth that is the legal system in California. Additionally, we are asking an awful lot of the court. This new issue is not NEARLY as clear cut as was the blatant disregard for equal rights inherent to the ban on gay marriage.
Clearly, I lack clarity on this issue, but it is SO crucial. I feel that it is important to tread softly, as the May 15th decision was so amazingly beautiful and groundbreaking and some of the things happening right now are bound to obliterate the very profound statement made by our (rather conservative) Supreme Court Justices. By utilizing the proper methods designed for us by the founders of this amazing country, we could easily overturn this without angry lawsuits. It may take longer, but I'll take a solid, time-consuming victory over shaky, ill-conceived attempts to spit in the face of the majority any day. Remember Bush v. Gore? REMEMBER????? How pissed were you when you, the majority, were told that your votes meant nothing and the Supreme Court just ripped that victory right out from under Al Gore? Maybe that's not exactly what happened, but that it how it felt and seemed to those of us on the winning... I mean losing end.
We can DO this, but we need to do it right.
In the meantime, my fingers are crossed. That's all I can do, now.
"Today the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay. " (From an email from Equality California.)
I have very mixed feelings about this. I feel that a lawsuit was absolutely the WORST way to go about fighting this amendment. I also feel, however, that the lawsuit brings excellent points to the judges.
"Lawsuits to overturn the initiative contend it was a revision because it denied equal protection to a minority group and eviscerated a key constitutional guarantee. Supporters of Proposition 8 counter that it merely amended the constitution by restoring a traditional definition of marriage."(See the whole article here.)
Revisions to the constitution, in sharp contrast with amendments, require a 2/3 majority vote. This challenge , if the court acknowledges its validity, would make 8's passage illegal, thus granting merit to the lawsuits which have been filed.
But.
What if the court does not accept the idea that 8 is a constitutional revision? Then the implications of filing a lawsuit could be severely detrimental to the development of equal rights for same-sex couples.
"First, Virginia Postrel is absolutely right that a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 is the worst idea yet. The state courts will not declare it invalid, even if the "revision versus amendment" theory were not as immediately implausible as it is. It may be that a superior court judge could be found who would buy it, and maybe even a court of appeals, but the California Supreme Court, which faces retention elections, you know, won't declare Proposition 8 illegal and thereby bring on even more controversy than they already stirred. That court has already done all that it can do for SSM advocates: it helped bring down the opposition vote from the 60 percents to just a little over 50. That alone is huge progress."
(Someone smarter than me wrote this.
Read it here, if you like.)
Please do not misunderstand me; I am a very strong and passionate proponent of gay marriage. I have often likened the passage of Prop 8 to the murder of my hypothetical puppy. However, it angers me that the fight was so soft-spoken and poorly executed before the vote and now that the fight must continue, such drastic and potentially damaging steps are being taken. Get it together, people. At this point, we're only creating more resistance by taking all the wrong turns in the labyrinth that is the legal system in California. Additionally, we are asking an awful lot of the court. This new issue is not NEARLY as clear cut as was the blatant disregard for equal rights inherent to the ban on gay marriage.
Clearly, I lack clarity on this issue, but it is SO crucial. I feel that it is important to tread softly, as the May 15th decision was so amazingly beautiful and groundbreaking and some of the things happening right now are bound to obliterate the very profound statement made by our (rather conservative) Supreme Court Justices. By utilizing the proper methods designed for us by the founders of this amazing country, we could easily overturn this without angry lawsuits. It may take longer, but I'll take a solid, time-consuming victory over shaky, ill-conceived attempts to spit in the face of the majority any day. Remember Bush v. Gore? REMEMBER????? How pissed were you when you, the majority, were told that your votes meant nothing and the Supreme Court just ripped that victory right out from under Al Gore? Maybe that's not exactly what happened, but that it how it felt and seemed to those of us on the winning... I mean losing end.
We can DO this, but we need to do it right.
In the meantime, my fingers are crossed. That's all I can do, now.
subrosa:
I disagree with the premise that the new appeal is a tactical mistake. If the court fails to overturn this suit (as I expect them to do), very, very little will happen. The bad law that will be made will primarily concern Revision law, which is not central to the cause in any way. Any actual substantive civil rights law will eventually be overturned once Prop 8 is overturned via proposition (which it will be eventually). I also disagree that the courts are the worst way to secure marriage equality. See Loving v. Virginia. See also Brown v. Board. The courts exist exactly for this purpose. Those on the cause of right and justice should use it for its intended purpose.